January 27, 2005
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Why won't that dog hunt?
Eric Alterman, in a quote you've seen elsewhere today:
Neither should you call what Maggie Gallagher practices “journalism.” True, what she did was not as bad as what Armstrong Williams did. But if she doesn’t know that working for a government paycheck without disclosing it does not violate journalistic ethics, then she has no business passing herself off as one. And I love the defense of “I forgot” and “Nobody ever asked me.” Nobody never asked her if she has sexual relations with animals, either. Are we supposed to ask everybody everything before they start revealing their professional conflicts of interest?
What a strange suggestion. While I'm not a fan of bestiality, I don't consider it a 'professional conflict of interest' for a journalist, and couldn't be less interested in its disclosure. Zookeeper-yes, dogwalker-yes, animal rights advocate-maybe.
Kidding aside, I agree that Gallagher should have disclosed her government business without interrogation.
Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at January 27, 2005 5:23 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksWhat a strange suggestion. While I'm not a fan of bestiality, I don't consider it a 'professional conflict of interest' for a journalist, and couldn't be less interested in its disclosure.
Okkaaaaayyyyy, Mindless...WHAT do you know about your co-blogger that we don't?
But shouldn't every scientist, public advocate, professional protestor, etc., that gets any government grants or funding disclose that? I never see environmental types disclose federal funding, but they are generally large recipients. It seems to me that the sword cuts both ways.
The difference between environmentalists, lecturers, et al is that they are not trusted with being objective. Journalists should not be paid by the people or organizations who are their subjects. We expect unbiased commentary from journalists. Whether we're talking about Gallagher being paid by the Bush Administration, or Carville joining Kerry's planning team, or Rather's sloppy reporting and clear partisanship, these things tarnish the public's view of journalism and make it more difficult for the thousands of ethical, hard working journalists to do their jobs and be viewed with anything other than cynicism.
I don't expect unbiased commentary from journalists. I used to expect neutral reporting from journalists and turn to columnists (and note that that's who is really being discussed here) for commentary, which may well be biased. But biased commentary has become the norm in regular journalism, so that's what I expect.
As for the environmentalist point raised above, how many scientists that appear on TV to diiscuss global warming disclose their sources of funding? The skeptics often get some funding from business interests; the proponents are often getting grants to study the problem -- grants that would taper off if it's not a big problem. The media usually does present these scientists as unbiased experts.
What's everyone's guess, as to how many names will be disclosed, with a "Gallagher situation" before the media calls UNCLE. What will be the ratio, at that point, of right:left?
My guess is that about two-dozen cases will appear, and the media(but not the Washington Post) will change its tune, but Maggie Gallagher -- the index case -- will be scorned(at least by MSM) for having pulled her finger out of the hole in the dike.
Medical journals now routinely print any monetary connection an author of an article has with the topic of the article.
Comments are Closed.